Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/01/08 09:02:19
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Why Yes, Are there LORDS OF WAR models in the Chaos Space Marine Codex? I am talking about Fellblades, Typhon, Thunderhawk Gunship, Warhound Titans, Reaver titans, Brass Scorpions 666 pt Daemons! All of these are not in the core CSM codex! If you only limit yourself to CSM core codex and fight some one with IA13 then you are seriously handicapping yourself as you are just bringing lascannons oh vehicles and meltas on marines while trying to fight Strength D weaponry! What am I to do? Ally Imperial Knights? That would be the go to answer to fight super heavies if the codex lacked super heavies.
You do realize that the rules for the Thunderhawk, Reaver, and Warhound are all written by GW, as well as the rules allowing them in normal games came from GW right? All FW did to the Reaver and Warhound is add some god specific daemonic gifts. Otherwise FW just casts the resin.
When FW alone wrote rules for superheavies, they weren't allowed in normal games, GW allowed those. That said, a Fellblade or Baneblade isn't going to dominate a game much more than say, a trio of Leman Russ tanks will.
You're playing with semantics.
Besides, when FW alone wrote rules, many of them were completely fethed up for at least one round or two, because FW aims worse than GW for point costing.
2015/01/08 09:08:28
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still waiting for the 5man mk4 tactical squad I bought to wipe out 80% of my opponents army.
LOLZ! Welcome to the plot of Space Marine, the game!
I dont think i was too clear when I wrote my message hastily. Nowadays you can have many Imperial Knights. Back 5 years ago, I had to fight real super heavies with just melta guns and lascannons and maybe a powerfist with my starting army as I had no super heavies of my own. The super heavies was the wedge that drove into my army while the rest of the enemy army chewed through everything else. Because that baneblade or that titan or revenant or what ever was at the very front coming at me, I had no choice but to shoot all my powerful guns at it. The rest of the enemy army was free to shoot or charge what ever was left over. Thats all the game was because objectives mattered little when you get tabled. Also charging units get their full charging distance back then.
After several of these games where they bum rush me with a super heavy I come to realize, I am not going to win unless I have one of my own. So I checked my CSM codex. Why isn't there a super heavy in there? They told me i have to buy a FW book and that FW sells the unit. I said forget that after seeing their prices and I put wh40k on hold. I come back to the game in 6th ed with the release of the new CSM codex. I thought this time it will be different. NOPE its the same thing! Now you dont have to use super heavies as the wedge to drive into the enemy catching all the fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Imperial Answer wrote: Weren't most of the Super-Heavy rules and point costs meant for apoc games originally ?
I think so but I did not know that when I first started out and my opponents kindly asking me, "You dont mind me using this forgeworld model do you?"
"OMG its so big and awesome! Will it fit on the table?"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/08 09:18:58
2015/01/08 09:36:34
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Filch wrote: Back 5 years ago, I had to fight real super heavies with just melta guns and lascannons and maybe a powerfist with my starting army as I had no super heavies of my own.
So because 5 years ago your opponents cheated (you couldn't use superheavies in "normal" games, they were Apocalypse-only) FW rules are bad?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/01/08 09:37:26
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Why Yes, Are there LORDS OF WAR models in the Chaos Space Marine Codex? I am talking about Fellblades, Typhon, Thunderhawk Gunship, Warhound Titans, Reaver titans, Brass Scorpions 666 pt Daemons! All of these are not in the core CSM codex! If you only limit yourself to CSM core codex and fight some one with IA13 then you are seriously handicapping yourself as you are just bringing lascannons oh vehicles and meltas on marines while trying to fight Strength D weaponry! What am I to do? Ally Imperial Knights? That would be the go to answer to fight super heavies if the codex lacked super heavies.
You do realize that the rules for the Thunderhawk, Reaver, and Warhound are all written by GW, as well as the rules allowing them in normal games came from GW right? All FW did to the Reaver and Warhound is add some god specific daemonic gifts. Otherwise FW just casts the resin.
When FW alone wrote rules for superheavies, they weren't allowed in normal games, GW allowed those. That said, a Fellblade or Baneblade isn't going to dominate a game much more than say, a trio of Leman Russ tanks will.
You're playing with semantics.
Says the poster who just stated they consider Stronghold Assault, Apocalypse, and Escalation to be Forgeworld publications, despite Forgeworld not having a single thing to do with them and being released by GW's core design studio and sold through GW's core sales channel and not available for purchase through FW's website.
And it's not semantics, when all FW does is cast the models, having nothing to do with the rules, blaming them for any rules issues is rather silly.
Besides, when FW alone wrote rules, many of them were completely fethed up for at least one round or two, because FW aims worse than GW for point costing.
FW's original costing for the Reaver was higher than it is now, as it was for just about everything like Baneblades and Warhounds and...everything I can think of off the top of my head. As noted earlier, the Turbolaser that makes the Warhound so hated was originally S9 AP2 small blast, not a 5" D strength template, and the Warhound with any configuration of weapons was more expensive than it is now.
Hell, we can even look at non-superheavy units. The Valkyrie had lower armor and a far higher pricetag when it was an FW unit (and there was no Vendetta), the Hydra was 200pts (and not squadronable), the Medusa (before GW removed it again for not having a plastic kit) got access to a very powerful AT shell under GW's rules, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 09:37:52
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/01/08 13:45:18
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still waiting for the 5man mk4 tactical squad I bought to wipe out 80% of my opponents army.
LOLZ! Welcome to the plot of Space Marine, the game!
I dont think i was too clear when I wrote my message hastily. Nowadays you can have many Imperial Knights. Back 5 years ago, I had to fight real super heavies with just melta guns and lascannons and maybe a powerfist with my starting army as I had no super heavies of my own. The super heavies was the wedge that drove into my army while the rest of the enemy army chewed through everything else. Because that baneblade or that titan or revenant or what ever was at the very front coming at me, I had no choice but to shoot all my powerful guns at it. The rest of the enemy army was free to shoot or charge what ever was left over. Thats all the game was because objectives mattered little when you get tabled. Also charging units get their full charging distance back then.
After several of these games where they bum rush me with a super heavy I come to realize, I am not going to win unless I have one of my own. So I checked my CSM codex. Why isn't there a super heavy in there? They told me i have to buy a FW book and that FW sells the unit. I said forget that after seeing their prices and I put wh40k on hold. I come back to the game in 6th ed with the release of the new CSM codex. I thought this time it will be different. NOPE its the same thing! Now you dont have to use super heavies as the wedge to drive into the enemy catching all the fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Imperial Answer wrote: Weren't most of the Super-Heavy rules and point costs meant for apoc games originally ?
I think so but I did not know that when I first started out and my opponents kindly asking me, "You dont mind me using this forgeworld model do you?"
"OMG its so big and awesome! Will it fit on the table?"
Best game ever.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2015/01/08 15:55:47
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm still waiting for the 5man mk4 tactical squad I bought to wipe out 80% of my opponents army.
LOLZ! Welcome to the plot of Space Marine, the game!
I dont think i was too clear when I wrote my message hastily. Nowadays you can have many Imperial Knights. Back 5 years ago, I had to fight real super heavies with just melta guns and lascannons and maybe a powerfist with my starting army as I had no super heavies of my own. The super heavies was the wedge that drove into my army while the rest of the enemy army chewed through everything else. Because that baneblade or that titan or revenant or what ever was at the very front coming at me, I had no choice but to shoot all my powerful guns at it. The rest of the enemy army was free to shoot or charge what ever was left over. Thats all the game was because objectives mattered little when you get tabled. Also charging units get their full charging distance back then.
After several of these games where they bum rush me with a super heavy I come to realize, I am not going to win unless I have one of my own. So I checked my CSM codex. Why isn't there a super heavy in there? They told me i have to buy a FW book and that FW sells the unit. I said forget that after seeing their prices and I put wh40k on hold. I come back to the game in 6th ed with the release of the new CSM codex. I thought this time it will be different. NOPE its the same thing! Now you dont have to use super heavies as the wedge to drive into the enemy catching all the fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Imperial Answer wrote: Weren't most of the Super-Heavy rules and point costs meant for apoc games originally ?
I think so but I did not know that when I first started out and my opponents kindly asking me, "You dont mind me using this forgeworld model do you?"
"OMG its so big and awesome! Will it fit on the table?"
So if I am picking up what you are putting down, your issue with FW is that you told people it was alright for them to use their Super Heavies in a standard game and then were surprised when you couldn't take them down? You were playing in the days when you could only get that stuff in Apoc games, of course you'd have issues bringing them down. It should have been no reason to put the hobby on hold, you just tell the opponents that it was fun the first couple of times but now you'd like to go back to regular games. Of course these days Super Heavies are allowed in normal games.
Tell you what, that's what my issue with the game is these days, Vehicle Squadrons and (the concept of, since I only really play with friends these days) Super Heavies in normal games. I had more fun personally when regular games didn't feel like Apoc. Not to say I had no fun with Apoc, it was a blast when that was what I set out to play.
Back to Super Heavies, and the in ability to pop them. I had a single MoT Power Fist Terminator kill a Shadow Sword 2k 2v2 game. Course that Terminator got the most freaking ridiculously lucky rolls that whole game, which always seemed to happen for him in games, he's just That Model.
2015/01/08 16:03:47
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
To me, tCtan is FW. As is anything apocalypse or stronghold assault.
To some people, even IK are FW.
Why ? because only a few years ago, that was called FW territory.
Im pretty sure a few years ago there was no such thing as a tCtan from FW, that was a GW original, and as for the IK, the only ones I remember ever seeing were ones with home rules based on the fluff that some GW Employees allowed into a couple Apoc Games because everyone playing thought it would be cool to have on the field.
2015/01/08 16:27:32
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
morgoth wrote: To me, tCtan is FW. As is anything apocalypse or stronghold assault.
To some people, even IK are FW.
Why ? because only a few years ago, that was called FW territory.
Why am I not surprised?
You can't complain about FW and in the same thread tell us you consider GW-models to be from Forgeworld.
That is just.. sigh!
Most people I've met consider everything that's beyond the BRB to be FW / Apoc / Whatnot Territory.
Many even believe that IK have no place in a normal 40K game.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that such an opinion represents a large share of the gaming community ?
Once you realize that, you'll be able to see why they have an issue with FW and anything obscure really, even though it's not related to FW per se.
HH is FW for example, and there are things in HH that are just ridiculously overpowered compared to regular 40K, when a 40K player hears of those things he thinks "WTF is FW thinking ?", and he's right.
And yes, it's not the same as 40K intended FW stuff, etc. but basically, that's how most people who refuse FW think, so you might as well try and understand them.
Then, you will be able to think of a good way to help them see the light, instead of continuing this pointless argument every time it comes up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 16:34:46
2015/01/08 16:36:44
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Most people I've met consider everything that's beyond the BRB to be FW / Apoc / Whatnot Territory.
Many even believe that IK have no place in a normal 40K game.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that such an opinion represents a large share of the gaming community ?
Once you realize that, you'll be able to see why they have an issue with FW and anything obscure really, even though it's not related to FW per se.
HH is FW for example, and there are things in HH that are just ridiculously overpowered compared to regular 40K, when a 40K player hears of those things he thinks "WTF is FW thinking ?", and he's right.
And yes, it's not the same as 40K intended FW stuff, etc. but basically, that's how most people who refuse FW think, so you might as well try and understand them.
First off that opinion is being acknowledged, we are just pointing out that it is objectively wrong. Apoc, Escalation they are all stamped with the GW logo and only the GW logo, the FW logo is no where to be seen on those things. So no, we don't see why they would have an issue with FW and they are wrong to have one for things GW publishes.
What in the HH is over powered? The two Plasma Pistol Moritat? Cause they nerfed that. The expensive but fun and fluffy legion specific units? As I said they are expensive and several aren't really that great. 3 Sicarans in an army? I can see that, they are pretty good but still expensive. The Primarchs? Well when they started getting rules LoW were something you needed permission to use, you can again thank GW for allowing that.
2015/01/08 16:43:02
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Ok..people, just think for a moment..this is a game..not high stakes Vegas poker..the only thing you are gambling in gaming with something you have never played against before is your time..but thats a gamble anytime you play anyone new..regardless of what forces or toys..or models or what ever you want to call them they bring. The person could be TFG..or a WAACTFG...or he could be a fun person and joy to be around..and enjoy their scent...lol.
Forgeworld is the same..so long as they have rules with them for the models its game on as far as I am concerned..and the worst that could happen is..OMG..that unit is kinda crazy/powerful/crappy etc..and you can remember that for a future game...if there are current rules..for me its no different then a codex I don't know by rote or the next iteration of a codex I did.
If someone shows up with a new bit of resin happiness and they want to try it out..I am more than happy to let them...its a game..you don't have to always win, and sometimes new stuff is fun..its not the toys..and the dice that make a good game..its who you play against.
And since everyone likes to cite their negative experiences with the forgeworld mob..I will put my positive ones.
Before I indulged in FW cool stuff..I played all manner of players and for the majority..anyone that plonked a FW model on the table and had the rules for it was a fun opponent..with fluffy bunny army lists..etc.
See my positive is just as valid as anyone's negatives..it just seems people don't like to try new stuff..or listen to horror stories with out sprinkling any salt on it.
anyway..end of
resume.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 16:44:09
Some legions just get Infiltrate for the whole army. Plus other crazy stuff. Plus glory whatever thingy. Plus crazy reroll everything (go first, side, seize).
That makes even WTFstar Coteaz look not that good.
Before I indulged in FW cool stuff..I played all manner of players and for the majority..anyone that plonked a FW model on the table and had the rules for it was a fun opponent..with fluffy bunny army lists..etc.
See my positive is just as valid as anyone's negatives..it just seems people don't like to try new stuff..or listen to horror stories with out sprinkling any salt on it.
I love seeing new stuff tbh. And FW models are awesome. And I don't mind playing HH armies either.
I'm just here to help the blind FW defenders see why their opponents have a point
Oh and.. I play and own FW stuff.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/08 16:47:30
2015/01/08 16:49:39
Subject: How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Forgeworld even advises that 30k is not balanced/designed to be played against 40k.
Q: Are the armies and units in the Horus Heresy books by Forge World meant to be used in
games against regular Codex armies, such as say Grey Knights or Orks?
A: While Forge World’s on-going range of Horus Heresy books and their game content are all
designed to use and be compatible with the Warhammer 40,000 rules, they have been fine-tuned and
focused on playing battles in the milieu of the Horus Heresy rather than in conjunction with the
Codexes representing warfare in the 41st Millennium, and this will remain the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 16:50:15
Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!
2015/01/08 16:55:03
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Some legions just get Infiltrate for the whole army.
Raven Guard get Infiltrate on basic Infantry Models, no Jump Packs or Termintors. Alpha Legion have other things that they can take as well. Infiltrate can be a double edged sword, sure you can get closer, but then you know what you are closer and can get killed easier. Infiltrate into the objective yeah thats good, but so many things can dislodge you.
morgoth wrote: Plus crazy reroll everything (go first, side, seize).
You realize that lots of things out side of the HH Armies get that.
And like
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Forgeworld even advises that 30k is not balanced/designed to be played against 40k.
Q: Are the armies and units in the Horus Heresy books by Forge World meant to be used in
games against regular Codex armies, such as say Grey Knights or Orks?
A: While Forge World’s on-going range of Horus Heresy books and their game content are all
designed to use and be compatible with the Warhammer 40,000 rules, they have been fine-tuned and
focused on playing battles in the milieu of the Horus Heresy rather than in conjunction with the
Codexes representing warfare in the 41st Millennium, and this will remain the case.
Says, HH isn't really geared for fighting 40k Armies. Though I'm sure Eldar can still hold their own against them.
2015/01/08 17:10:36
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Forge World only adds to the game.
There are three basic lines of argument against Forge World
1) I don't know what the rules are.
This falls apart because players play against rules they haven't seen all the time. It happens every time a new codex is released, it happens whenever a new player with an army that hasn't been in your meta shows up, etc...
2) The rules are broken.
Yes, there are some individual models which are broken. But no more than models in codices are, even the most OP forge world model rarely compares to the latest codex cheese.
On top of this, the vast majority of Forge World rules are the opposite of broken. They're sub-par or just average. But they do add variety to many codices that are otherwise lacking. Forge World actually does a better job of balancing things than the main rule writers. Especially since they go through several iterations of rules before they get published(their experimental rules are available for free download. Free? From GW? Madness!)
3) Forge World isn't GW.
Just flat out wrong. Look at the little copyright declarations on any of their products, particularly the little baggies. It says "Copyright Games Workship Limited... ...Forge World, the Forge World logo are either registered, TM, and/or Copyright of Games Workshop Limited"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/08 17:13:35
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
morgoth wrote: Most people I've met consider everything that's beyond the BRB to be FW / Apoc / Whatnot Territory.
Many even believe that IK have no place in a normal 40K game.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that such an opinion represents a large share of the gaming community ?
Once you realize that, you'll be able to see why they have an issue with FW and anything obscure really, even though it's not related to FW per se.
Saying the Transcendent C'tan is from Forgeworld is just stupid.
Sorry, there is no other way to say it.
HH is FW for example, and there are things in HH that are just ridiculously overpowered compared to regular 40K, when a 40K player hears of those things he thinks "WTF is FW thinking ?", and he's right.
And there are things in WHFB that is overpowered compared to regular 40K.
Why compare a game that is not 40k with 40k?
And yes, it's not the same as 40K intended FW stuff, etc. but basically, that's how most people who refuse FW think, so you might as well try and understand them.
Or we could educate them when they say dumb things like: "Void Shield Generators are from Forgeworld!".
Then, you will be able to think of a good way to help them see the light, instead of continuing this pointless argument every time it comes up.
There is an easy way to help them see the light: Let them read the rules of the thing you are going to field.
There is only a single overpowered thing from Necron-Forgeworld and that requires like half your army in a Pylon-deathstar.
It takes people a minute to compare a Tomb Stalker to any other MC in the game and realise how mediocre to bad it is.
Unfortunately some people managed to convince those people that "FW is pay to play".
2015/01/08 18:34:57
Subject: How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
As of 7th edition most FW rules have been officially sanctioned for use in their respective games by GW. No need for opponent permission or a ruling from a game organizer.
Personally I'm a fan of Forgeworld. I don't utilize them on as broad a scale as I used to but I still have a few units on hand to spice things up which is what I think FW does swimmingly. Contemptor Dreadnoughts, a Land Raider Prometheus, some Siege Assault Squads… nothing extreme but they help me achieve the themes and concepts that I'm aiming for in my various armies.
It matters not from whence the weave flows, just that it doooo
-Nicki Minaj, Prophetess of Khorne
Yes, there are some individual models which are broken. But no more than models in codices are, even the most OP forge world model rarely compares to the latest codex cheese.
That's just wrong. Yes, tons of FW stuff is just way overcosted, but it also has the most undercosted things.
Way more than any model in any codex.
Even the most OPGW model cannot compare to a FW miscost, there have been several mentions, and miscosting is a mistake to be expected from a branch that has less time and money invested in rules as well as less play testing.
And non-standard models, which most people except FW fans associate with FW, like the tCtan, also tend to be more broken than any model in any codex.
And that's normal, because those units don't get more than 1% of the playtime of the other units, so any mistake in costing will be less obvious, last longer (as release cycles are longer on niche products...), etc.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/08 19:10:03
2015/01/08 19:13:47
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Name one thing outside of the HH armies that gives you army wide infiltration.
My Tyranid Genestealer army.
Oh, and my Ravenwing army pretty much has Scout on everything, does that count, too?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/01/08 19:15:09
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Yes, there are some individual models which are broken. But no more than models in codices are, even the most OP forge world model rarely compares to the latest codex cheese.
That's just wrong. Yes, tons of FW stuff is just way overcosted, but it also has the most undercosted things.
Way more than any model in any codex.
Even the most OPGW model cannot compare to a FW miscost, there have been several mentions, and miscosting is a mistake to be expected from a branch that has less time and money invested in rules as well as less play testing.
And non-standard models, which most people except FW fans associate with FW, like the tCtan, also tend to be more broken than any model in any codex.
And that's normal, because those units don't get more than 1% of the playtime of the other units, so any mistake in costing will be less obvious, last longer (as release cycles are longer on niche products...), etc.
Wow...rationality...such a rarity these days.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2015/01/08 19:15:34
Subject: How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Most people?
So far you seem to be the only person uneducated enough to still associate the T-C'tan with Forgeworld, despite people telling him it's from Games Workshop itself.
People already proved that FW is nothing compared to the overpoweredness of GW.
2015/01/08 19:24:18
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Which by the way I am still waiting on an example.
morgoth wrote: Name one thing outside of the HH armies that gives you army wide infiltration.
Did I say that all Armies can get that? No, I said that two specific Armies can get them in the HH and its not a 'be all, end all'. Besides, Genestealers. Do you also have an issue with Army wide Scout and Deepstrike?
morgoth wrote: And non-standard models, which most people except FW fans associate with FW, like the tCtan, also tend to be more broken than any model in any codex.
And that's normal, because those units don't get more than 1% of the playtime of the other units, so any mistake in costing will be less obvious, last longer (as release cycles are longer on niche products...), etc.
If by most people you mean YOU, then yes I suppose you are right most people do associate a GW Model with GW rules sold by GW on the GW site and in GW Stores as a FW model.
2015/01/08 19:31:18
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
It doesn't matter the details of what some FW things are overpowered, because for anything that may be in that territory, another one exists in a core codex.
The argument that FW is bad because of a few bad apples is a terrible one because the same logic could be applied to nearly any codex.
Further, using the HH stuff is really digging deep for any shred of support for a terrible argument; the writers have even clearly stated that 30k stuff is designed and balanced around other 30k stuff. While its quite possible and indeed mostly fine to pit 30k armies vs. 40k ones, the balance issues that crop up are a non-issue because the writers have expressly stated their intent was not to provide balanced 30k vs. 40k matchups.
I should also remind you that Morgoth also firmly believes the Wave Serpent is fine, and only earlier in this thread made the absurd statement that the T C'tan is a FW product, because Morgoth said so.
Rationality indeed.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/01/09 10:32:23
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
Name one thing outside of the HH armies that gives you army wide infiltration.
My Tyranid Genestealer army.
Oh, and my Ravenwing army pretty much has Scout on everything, does that count, too?
Pretty much and all is not the same thing, besides the Genestealer army is a bad joke, and the Ravenwing is "pretty much"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: Most people?
So far you seem to be the only person uneducated enough to still associate the T-C'tan with Forgeworld, despite people telling him it's from Games Workshop itself.
People already proved that FW is nothing compared to the overpoweredness of GW.
T Ctan used to be Apocalypse only.
Apocalypse used to be FW only.
That was not so long ago, many people are still in that mindset.
People proved nothing, I gave examples of FW crazy that nobody could disprove.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: The argument that FW is bad because of a few bad apples is a terrible one because the same logic could be applied to nearly any codex.
It's a terrible one, but it's still commonplace, because FW and anything non-standard 40K has always been part of the big unknown for some players.
FW is great, I own some, love it, play it - just trying to make the blind FW fanatics realize that some 40K players are against FW for tangible reasons.
If by most people you mean YOU, then yes I suppose you are right most people do associate a GW Model with GW rules sold by GW on the GW site and in GW Stores as a FW model.
I know it's hard to grasp, but can you try to realize that for many people, anything that is not part of codexes is one big pile of unknown stuff ?
Can you try to understand that anything beyond that is unknown / FW / Apoc territory and that they would toss it all together as the big unknown pile of FWWTF because they were in contact with some of it and it was truly fethed up ?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/09 10:38:22
2015/01/09 11:07:25
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
There is NOTHING wrong with Forgeworld units, especially with the recent books doing their best to balanced them as much as possible (for example the Experimental Rules and changes to several models). Its just another misconception that Forgeworld is "all powerful" when in fact it is underpowered in most situations as the books are starting to be geared more towards fluff, people just need to stop being scared to play something they haven't yet which is what I feel a lot of this hate stems from.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
2015/01/09 11:35:58
Subject: Re:How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
because they were in contact with some of it and it was truly fethed up ?
Like wave serpents and 2++ re-rollable saves?
I agree with you that some people (less and less now, but more so before) are afraid of the unknown and therefore do not try to include FW.
However if they actually looked at the FW rules, they would realise there is nothing in them that most codices can't do already.
That's just plain wrong, I've given several examples of things from FW that are just way worse than a Wave Serpent.
2++ Rerollable is an effect of combos and due to minimal table time, most FW combos are still undiscovered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: There is NOTHING wrong with Forgeworld units, especially with the recent books doing their best to balanced them as much as possible (for example the Experimental Rules and changes to several models). Its just another misconception that Forgeworld is "all powerful" when in fact it is underpowered in most situations as the books are starting to be geared more towards fluff, people just need to stop being scared to play something they haven't yet which is what I feel a lot of this hate stems from.
Except that the few costing mistakes that FW made were rather big and those are the models that were played and sold the most, and that's why people are afraid of it.
Sure, nowadays, the vast majority of FW is (way) overcosted and there are very few wildly undercosted things, but it's ridiculous to pretend that those don't exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/09 11:38:00
2015/01/09 11:49:45
Subject: How do you, personally, feel about the use of FW units in tabletop?
I never said they do not exist, however there are just as many if not more in the standard 40k Codexs and to complain about the few that are now in the FW books with those in mind is redundant.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
